Re: [PATCH RESEND2 net-next 0/8] net: stmmac: qcom-ethqos: further serdes reorganisation
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Date: 2026-03-01 13:42:24
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-arm-msm, linux-phy
On Sun, Mar 01, 2026 at 02:14:53AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 08:31:11AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:quoted
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:55:56 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:quoted
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 00:11:29 +0000 Russell King (Oracle) wrote:quoted
The AI review for patch 7 says: This commit fixes a bug but lacks a Fixes: tag. The commit modifies behavior introduced in 360000820ae2 ("phy: qcom-sgmii-eth: add .set_mode() and .validate() methods") by making phy_power_on() call qcom_dwmac_sgmii_phy_calibrate() to restore the previous setup, and by making qcom_dwmac_sgmii_phy_set_mode() check if the PHY is powered on before attempting calibration. Should this commit include: Fixes: 360000820ae2 ("phy: qcom-sgmii-eth: add .set_mode() and .validate() methods") which is _wrong_, this isn't a bug fix.Yes, that's what I thought but then I saw the other thread..Trying to apply this now but stmmac parts don't apply on Linus's tree, and Vinod wants a tag :( What do we do? Could you, perhaps, send us a PR with this on top of Linus's tree (a resolution of the inevitable conflict with net-next would be helpful too). Or do we give up on the tag?Actually, I think it's mainly me who wants a stable tag. I'm working on a series for phy-next which will conflict with this hunk from Russell's patch 1:
Is this because of the issues I raised with the quality of generic PHY API implementation by drivers? -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!